Comments by "Bob thebomb" (@bobthebomb1596) on "Matt Kean ‘just plain wrong’ on nuclear: Peta Credlin" video.

I like that particular technology too as it offers the potential to use U238 as a fuel and has less reliance on speciality salts. I suspect thermal spectrum designs might prove a little easier to license in the short term, though that is more gut feeling than evidence based.
3
@NoRegertsHere I would be happy with either or both technologies to be honest. I have always found the proliferation argument a bit of a strawman. SMR reactors can be supplied as sealed units and removed for decommissioning after use. Alternatively operation can be monitored via the IAEA. The only country going the weapons route by limiting IAEA access is Iran and everyone knows what they are doing hence the international sanctions. Any country with the budget and the will can make nuclear weapons, but they can not hide it under the cover of a commercial power program.
2
@NoRegertsHere Having worked in the public sector, I do not.
2
@NoRegertsHere Hopefully that will only be a problem for export customers and I don't see Australia falling victim to that; she is a rather trusted friend.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 Nothing will happen overnight, whatever people think. A first step has to be taken, which is to produce research reactors to gather the necessary data on which to base licensing regulations. A reactor could probably be built within a year.
1
You are confusing SMRs with the Rolls-Royce design. Both conventional solid fuel (RR) and liquid fuel reactor designs are available as SMRs. The big advantage of the RR design in the short term is that it relies on mostly proven technology and thus should be relatively straightforward to license. There are a lot of questions to be answered wrt molten salt technology before a regulator will approve a design for commercial application.
1